Risky behaviour

Women in Korea were encouraged to donate "spare" eggs for experimentation with cloning. This involves hyperstimulating the ovaries, and then:

The process, which is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves taking a donated egg (or oocyte) from which the nucleus has been removed, and replacing that nucleus with DNA from the non reproductive cell of a patient. The result was 11 lab-cultivated embryos that developed into blastocysts. At this stage, a small cavity (blastocoele) forms inside the embryo whose inner cells are undifferentiated and a source of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research, which is "morally and ethically unacceptable," is discussed in many places, so we'll reduce our comments to this observation concerning the women involved:

Professor Koo Young-moo, from the University of Ulsan, raised ethical questions about the donors, not about the embryos. For him in fact, “Hwang might face some problems since he did not discuss the risks associated with egg extraction with the 18 donors and did not specify in the signed agreement that the eggs would be destroyed”.

Hmmm, the women were not fully informed before the procedures -- either of the complete scope of the experiment or the medical risks to themselves? Has this ever happened before?? What might those risks be?

"Imagine the worse case scenario in which a donor suffers from ovarian hyperstimulation, a dangerous condition for a woman’s reproductive capacity."

Medical "advances" using dangerous procedures which ultimately harm women. Procedures offered without adequate information given beforehand. Consent given by women who didn't have all the facts at their disposal. Fiddling with reproduction for dubious ends. I see a pattern here. And from the feminists -- not a peep.

Comments

This is grotesque. What would the next step be by the scientific community if they did not get willing participants? Since obviously a good portion of the human race seems to be pushing aside the evil aspect of all of this embryonic experimentation, it nevertheless appears to me to be a gigantic game of pin the tail on the donkey with some quite unsavory side effects.

Articles

Comments

From Benedict XVI“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint.
It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."

Anger and Patrimony (from Donna)This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!

Excellent, Dom! (from Teresa)That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.

Find the logic (from "me")Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.

Find the logic (from Mary)I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.